Advertising Bollocks

Happy new year.

2012-01-01T02:45:00.001Z

I'd like to wish my reader a Happy New Year, and to let them know that I've not abandoned this blog - merely been too busy else-web (and life) to do detailed posts on here since June (that, and most of the tripe I've seen on TV that, in quieter times, I would have posted about, has been merely repetitions of stuff I've already posted about - usually the 99.9% of germs bollocks.)

If my reader would like to make suggestions on further posts I could make, they would be gratefully accepted.

Smoking is no longer a health condition...

2011-06-02T16:09:00.000+01:00

Via everyone's favourite toothless advertising regulator:

They added that as smoking was not a health condition, being asked if you were a smoker was, therefore, not a health question.
[...]
The ASA noted that Asda had followed the BMA and ABI guidelines in considering smoking to be a lifestyle choice

The ASA case in question revolves around whether Asda, in advertising life insurance with "no health questions asked" can get away with asking potential clients if they smoke or not.

Here in the real world, where smokers are regularly discriminated against on the basis of not only their own health (NHS costs,) but others (second hand and the fabled third hand smoke) it's hard to see how "do you smoke" cannot be construed as a health question.

One does, however, wonder what other "lifestyle choice" questions the nice people at Asda also ask, since the adjudication is strangely quiet.

Have you had sex with a man, or anyone who's had sex with a man, in the past 60 years?
Have you ever consumed excess ethanol?
Do you religiously eat your five-a-day?
Do you regularly use sun factor 5,000 when going outdoors in daylight?
Do you own, or have you ever owned, a mobile phone?

I'm sure the list is, if not endless, quite large.

Well at least we now know you can tell your doctor to mind his own business when he asks how many you smoke, since it has no bearing on your health whatsoever; it's simply a lifestyle choice.

(g^2)^7 - how not to be a maths teacher on camera.

2011-03-22T17:24:00.001Z

"Turn Your Talent to Teaching"- but make sure they bloody camera-man doesn't catch you writing the wrong answers on the board.

The UK Government, once again wasting our money, is advertising for teachers. Maths teachers. Just a shame the editors included this bit in the still above.[1] Perhaps those useless maths classes at school weren't so useless. At least if you're in media/advertising.

The video, while it's still around (the `still' is from around 19s):

Teacher: What I want you do now is we're[2] going to look at how we're going to solve this equation here.[(g²)⁷=g^? appears on the board as a problem]

Teacher's voiceover: If it's an early lesson and I need to get them started, [we see the kids playing bingo] I try different ways to clear the cobwebs out. [teacher writes g²×g⁷ on the board]

Teacher: This one, is just do[2] the highest common factor, so what's the highest common factor of 80 and 60.

Kids: <mumbles of 'twenty'>

Teacher: Do'ya[2] think it's twenty? Twenty, yeah?

One Kid: Bingo!

Other kids: <cheers>

Voiceover: Turn your talent to teaching. Visit teach.gov.uk

The Daily Mail appears to have been the first paper out with this 'mistake' being spotted by some 15yr old spotty oik[3] claiming they're showing the wrong answer.

Of course, that segment could quite probably have lasted a couple of minutes in the classroom there, with the teacher pointing out why it's not the right solution, but to include it in the final advert where it could be misinterpreted? Laziness on the behalf of the advertisers.

Of course, the DM's on a rant about how this 'wrong' answer shows declining standards in our schools. I'm more put out by the standard of spoken English by the teacher[2].

Mr. Coombs is praised highly for his observation of course. From the DM article:

Adam Williams, principal of John Cabot Academy which Chris attends, praised the schoolboy's attention to detail.

Aren't you simply looking forward him being one of your colleagues a few years hence? No big-headedness of course, just a mention in a newspaper article.

He said: 'It is great to think that Chris showed that degree of observation and understanding of maths to spot the apparent error in the advert.'

I learnt about indices in the first year of secondary school (12 yrs old) - just when are they teaching them these days? A-levels?

[1] For those who can't spot it, (g²)⁷, is g²×g²×g²×g²×g²×g²×g² which is g¹⁴. Not g²×g⁷ which is g⁹. And Wrong™

[2] Probably just as well she's not teaching English.

[3] Well - Chris Coombs doesn't look too spotty from the DM photo.

Powerade ION4 - making you wetter than a wet thing in lots of wet stuff.

2011-03-15T23:13:00.001Z

Prompted by STONESTREEKER:

New, improved[1], Powerade ION4 [Subs: Na, Ca, Mg, K] [Sub: Contains carbohydrates] replenishes fuel and 4 of the minerals lost in sweat.

[Sub: Preparation]

[Sub: Determination]

[Sub: Perspiration]

[Sub: Hydration]

Powerade ION4, hydrates better than water.

Keep sweating.

Presenting Coca-Cola's new and improved[1] sports drink. They'll be sponsoring the Olympics (2012) dontcha know.

However it's not exactly new[1]. From the US website[current - there's a video there that didn't make it to the archive]:

In 2009, POWERADE^® sports scientists created ION4^®, which revolutionized the sports drink. ION4^® is an advanced electrolyte system that is in POWERADE^® to help replenish four electrolytes lost in sweat.

I wouldn't call a 2 year old product "new." Certainly not in the context of advertising. So that's a load of bollocks right from the start.

Back to the UK advert, they claim to "hydrate better than water." Sounds a tad spurious. Lets look at what it's supposed to 'help' with, or mitigate - dehydration.

The medical definition of dehydration (or hypohydration) is:

[...] the loss of water and salts essential for normal body function.

There are various stages/severity of dehydration:

Mild dehydration is the loss of no more than 5% of the body's fluid. Loss of 5-10% is considered moderate dehydration. Severe dehydration (loss of 10-15% of body fluids) is a life-threatening condition that requires immediate medical care.

Causes of dehydration?

Strenuous activity, excessive sweating, high fever, and prolonged vomiting or diarrhea

Symptoms?

Symptoms of dehydration at any age include cracked lips, dry or sticky mouth, lethargy, and sunken eyes. A person who is dehydrated cries without shedding tears and does not urinate very often. The skin is less elastic than it should be and is slow to return to its normal position after being pinched.

Treatment?

Increased fluid intake and replacement of lost electrolytes are usually sufficient to restore fluid balances in patients who are mildly or moderately dehydrated. For individuals who are mildly dehydrated, just drinking plain water may be all the treatment that is needed. Adults who need to replace lost electrolytes may drink sports beverages or consume a little additional salt.

So. Yes. If you're MILDLY dehydrated, Powerade, MAY be used to replace some salts lost during heavy sweating during exercise. (If you've lost quite a bit of fluid/your electrolyte balance is way off however I'd suggest you visit a doctor/hospital rather than drink this as a treatement.)

Or you could just drink water and, possbly, eat a packet of salt and vinegar crisps. Doing both, of course will also "hydrate you better than water (alone.)"

I think I know which will probably be cheaper. (I can't find any ION4 online at the moment, but from Ocado, 4x500ml bottles Powerade Cherry: £3.49. 12x25g Walker's Ready Salted: £2.65)

So while their claim to "hydrate better than water" isn't entirely bollocks, the way they present it - as something wonderful that cannot be achieved by anything else - is.

On the specific salts/minerals they mention - your body is adaptable. It can get temporarily lower on them without danger and can obtain all sorts of vitamins and minerals and salts from your (hopefully varied) diet. If you get a little low on some of them, your body will catch up. If you're getting dangerously low on some of them then Powerade isn't going to help you.

I'll probably do a post on the snake-oil that are OTC, self medicated, mineral supplements in general (or some specific ones) sometime.

[1] Come now. It can't be both. If it's new, then there isn't an old thing to improve upon. If it's improved then there must have been an older thing. Or as one Yahoo Answerer succinctly put it:

It's improving on the perfectly good thing that you own that the ad agency wants you to now think of as junk, so you'll buy the product they are pitching.

"For God's sake" is not offensive.

2011-03-06T22:36:00.001Z

In the ongoing campaign by various groups about the invasive nature of, and pointlessness that is the UK Census being held this year, one group - the British Humanist Association[1] came up with three posters addressing what is the only voluntary question on the whole census - the religion question. One is shown below; all three can be seen here.

Not Religious?
In the 2011 Census Tick "No Religion"

"I put 'Jedi' in the last census. But I'll tick 'No religion this time.

I'm not religious and I don't want Bishops and the government saying this is a religious country.

That's just an excuse to keep religion in politics."

If you're not religious for God's sake say so.

cencus-campaign.org.uk

The intention was to buy advertising space at railway stations to display the posters

CBS Outdoor, the advertisers that own the space, had other ideas.

Two reasons were given by owners of the space: they were concerned that the use of the phrase ‘for God’s sake’ would cause widespread and serious offence and they also did not wish to take adverts relating to religion.

As the BHA allude to, only the professionally offended could take "widespread and serious offence,"

But what the BHA didn't point out (at least in their PR) is that the second reason is also spurious. Lots of religious groups are quite capable, and able, to advertise on the self-same spots. Those listed (though probably not exhaustive) include the Alpha course, the Christian Party[1] and the Trinitarian Bible Society.

It's not as if there isn't a history of religious advertising on public transport.

Vaguely related, I was somewhat amused by His Grace's "Mind your own *%$#@!! business" campaign but I think I'll be ticking the No Religion box.

[1] The BHA were responsible for the "There's probably no God. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life" bus adverts that generated ASA complaints. In reply the Christian Party came up with "There definitely is a God. So join the Christian Party and enjoy your life" which became the most complained-about non-broadcast ad ever.

Update (2): Natwest - (not so) helpful banking

2011-03-03T00:32:00.001Z

Back in August '10 I brought up Natwest's "Helpful Banking." advert.
In December '10, they got slapped down by the ASA for not opening as many branches on Saturdays as they appeared to imply in that advert.

Now it appears that they aren't really living up to the rest of that advert.

Deloitte (an auditor) was hired by Natwest to monitor them for how well they were living up to their 'promises.'

A sample[current] of what they promised to do:

3. We will provide you with friendly, helpful service whenever you deal with us
We're aiming to get 9 out of 10 customers to rate our service as helpful.

90% satisfaction? Wonder how they're going to select the people they're going to question.

Either that or the fact that the other 10% of their customers are costing RBS/Natwest £2.8m due to mishandling of complaints in the space of 6 months[1] suggests that when things go wrong, customers would be better off at Santander.

9. We pledge to stay open for business if we are the last bank in town and will consider a range of options to ensure a local banking service is available
We’ve already identified over 100 ‘Last in Town’ locations where we’ll continue to provide a local banking service.

Woolly description of what "last in town" means, especially when by the industry definition, Natwest is already the "last bank in town" in 217 locations. I somehow thing it's stretching the weasle phrase "over 100" to cover 217, so that means they're quite able to shut "up to" 116 branches and still keep this 'promise.'

"Local banking service" is also similarly woolly. It's not a hard and fast commitment to actually operate a brick-and-mortar branch (Saturdays or not.) Perhaps they're going to buy some more white vans.

13. Twice a year we will publish the most common of complaints
And we’ll strive to address the causes

It's been 7 months since the adverts. I could be wrong, but if you're going to do something twice a year, it's generally accepted that they should be 6 months apart, so that mean they should have published at least one list.

Strangely I've not seen it, and it's certainly not linked on that page.

Anyway. How did they do?
(I couldn't find the report/PR, so this is based on the sparse news reports currently out there.)

Out of their 25 goals, they passed 20, and failed 5. That's 20% failure. (Or a "80% success rate" as Brian Hartzer, head of Retail Banking, would have you think of it.)

Possibly an acceptable result had the goals been externally imposed, but these were self-imposed.

2. We will aim to serve the majority of customers within 5 minutes in our branches
This year we’ll introduce a new queue busting programme in our busiest branches to ensure every available member of staff is out serving customers during busy periods.

75% of customers were served in under 5 minutes. Presumably leaving the other 25% waiting half and hour. Or more.

3. We will provide you with friendly, helpful service whenever you deal with us
We're aiming to get 9 out of 10 customers to rate our service as helpful.

Only 80% of customers believed the hype. The still suspiciously high number is probably down to either judicious selection of the people questioned, or biased questioning. Again - few details available.

4. We will help you to make the right choices for you and your money, providing a clear product range with simply explained features and charges
All of our branch literature will be simplified and rewritten in line with customer feedback. We’re also introducing a new Customer Service Review programme to make it easier for our customers to choose the right product for them.

This appears to be another one. Bugger all detail apart from they've reduced the number of products from 600 before the banking crisis to 200 now.

12. We will resolve customer complaints fairly, consistently, and promptly
We are aiming for 75% of customers to be satisfied with the way their complaint has been handled.

Way short. 57%. And that includes a 41% increase in complaints about the group in the 2nd half of 2010. Perhaps RBS/Natwest were encouraging more people to complain so they could (attempt to) satisfactorily solve them to push the %age up?

Sadly none of the news reports coming up on Google News at the moment have the 5th missed target. Indeed, none of them list the four I list above in much detail.

[1] Ok, it was the first half of 2009, but the timing of the fine coinciding with this report from Deloitte is rather embarrassing.

3-in-1 - if you actually take three in one that is

2011-02-22T14:30:00.000Z

Nescafe's "latest" wheeze for the UK[1]:

3-in-1 coffee

With NESCAFÉ ORIGINAL 3-in-1 it’s now amazingly easy to make the perfect white coffee with sugar.
All you have to do is add hot water so you get a creamy and sweet tasting coffee every time.

The premise being that the vast majority of the population all

use the same sized cup
use the same size level-teaspoon of coffee
take the same amount of sugar
would use the same amount of whitener if they normally use skimmed/semi-skimmed/full-fat milk, but didn't have any milk

Sod all those who

use pint mugs
use heaped teaspoons of coffee regardless of the size of their cup
don't take sugar
prefer their coffee slightly cooler due to the milk they normally add

Anyway... brief costings from a quick google search:

Asda £1.00 for "10" servings of 3-in-1: 10p per cup.

Asda £6.38 for 300g jar Nescafe Original (@1.7g per serving => 176 servings) - 3.625p per cup
Asda £1.34 for 2kg of sugar (lets say 2 tsp = 8.4g => 238 servings) - 0.536p per cup
Asda £0.86 for 2 pints semi-skim milk (lets call it 20 servings) - 4.3p per cup.

So, on the face of it, at those prices (and, of course, assumptions) you're looking at about 1.5p more expensive per cup for the, more convenient, creamy and sweet stuff (the latter comes to 8.5p rounded up.)

But:

You're not getting any choice in the serving size with the former
It assumes you actually want all three
You prefer whitener to milk.
This will, of course, be an introductory price, and it will, in no way, stay this low if they continue to sell it.

Scaryduck has his own take on this of course...

However, I can't help thinking that this new innovation might be missing a trick.

[...]

If only you made such a product which provided the coffee lover with just coffee, leaving them with the option of adding sugar and milk to taste?

[1] They've been trying this all over the place. They tried in Africa in 2008.

Polls within posts

2011-02-18T08:53:00.001Z

Test post to attempt to answer the question posed over at The Moose.

Used http://dadsbattleground.blogspot.com/2008/07/how-to-add-poll-inside-of-post-on.html as a starting point.

How easy is it to create polls actually in blog posts?

2011-01-17T22:48:00.000Z

Via BitterWallet - a new mildly amusing blog: Things Real People Don't Say About Advertising:

BT and net neutrality.

2011-01-04T14:50:00.000Z

BT - claiming in one breath they're not doing something while saying they are in the next. Via the advertising medium of a newspaper quote. (Or possibly a press release - I haven't located the original source of the quote.)

First, a brief definition: "Net neutrality": not forcing customers (or the websites providing the data they want to look at) to pay extra for bandwidth.

For example: since the iPlayer uses up more bandwidth than, say, email, this provides a headache for ISPs since it uses up a lot of bandwidth. ISPs either provide that extra bandwidth, or manage the traffic such that other traffic gets priority over iPlayer traffic.

Net neutrality (loosely - it's a bit more complicated) is the concept that while ISPs may take reasonable measures to manage their traffic, they shouldn't try to profit from it by, say, charging either the BBC on the one hand, or those using iPlayer on the other (or even both) to prioritise iPlayer traffic.

Critics claim that opponents to net neutrality want to create a 'two tier' internet, those who are willing/forced to pay for prioritised traffic, and those who refuse/cannot afford to.

BT have a new product "Content Connect" (warning - annoying auto-play video.) Essentially a service whereby the likes of the BBC and Google (i.e. YouTube) can pay BT some money to have their content delivered faster to the user, or you, the end user can pay for faster, 'guaranteed' content.

When called on this by the Open Rights Group:

"We are talking about ISPs competing with the Internet for content delivery. Whether films, music or gaming services, the idea is that ISPs will deliver content better and more reliably than the Internet. That says a lot about the state of investment in our Internet.

"The result could be a fundamental shift away from buying services from the Internet to bundled services from ISPs: which would reduce competition and take investment away from Internet companies. That would be bad for everyone."

Or the FT:

BT is starting to sell a new service that gives broadband providers the tools to create a two-tier internet, where some video content would reach consumers in a better condition than other material.

The service devised by BT’s wholesale unit gives broadband providers the opportunity to charge content owners for high quality distribution of their video products to consumers.

BT replied:

"Contrary to recent reports in the media, BT's Content Connect service will not create a two-tier internet, but will simply offer service providers the option of differentiating their broadband offering through enhanced content delivery,"

Translation:

Content Connect will not create a two-tier internet, but will simply create a two-tier internet.

Update: Natwest - helpful banking

2010-12-16T12:27:00.002Z

2011/03/03: Update: Natwest fail to pass a fifth of their self imposed targets.

Back in August I pulled Natwest's Helpful Banking advert apart thusly:

It's why, when you told us to open on Saturdays, we did.[2]
And why 160 branches will open earlier, or close later.
[...]
[2] Which banks don't have branches open on Saturdays? And I note that they don't qualify this by saying how many of their branches are open on Saturday. (I'm assuming it's not all of them since their branch locator has a check box for listing only those open on Saturdays.)

It would appear two others noticed this and put in a complaint to the Advertising Standards Authority (I was not one of them) and Natwest got a slap on the wrist as a result:

Issue
Two viewers challenged whether the claim "It's why, when you told us to open on Saturdays, we did" misleadingly implied that all NatWest branches were open on Saturdays, which they understood was not the case.

Response
[...] [Natwest] said they had a long history of Saturday openings and, in response to customer demand, 675 of their 1552[1] branches were currently open on Saturdays.

Assessment
Upheld
The ASA noted the ad focused on the NatWest Customer Charter, but nonetheless considered that viewers would understand the claim "It's why, when you told us to open on Saturdays, we did" to mean that all NatWest branches were open on Saturdays. Because we understood that that was not the case, and there was no qualification in the ad to explain that the claim applied to selected branches only, we concluded that the ad was misleading.[...]

Action
The ad must not be broadcast again in its current form.

[1] That'd be 43% then - not even 1/2 of them.

Normal people are terrorist suspects

2010-12-09T12:23:00.000Z

Spotted via Dizzy:

The government wasting more money on yet another pointless advertising campaign.

Examples of suspicious behaviour[current]?

Van - Terrorists need transport.

Passport - Terrorists use multiple identities.

Mobile phone - Terrorists need communication.

Camera - Terrorists need information.

Chemicals - Do you know someone buying large or unusual quantities of chemicals for no obvious reason?

Mask and goggles - Terrorists use protective equipment.

Credit card - Terrorists need funding.

Computer - Terrorists use computers.

Suitcase - Terrorists need to travel.

Padlock - Terrorists need storage.

I mean, really - can you come up with at least one valid and non-terrorist related use for each of those items?

I could probably come up with my own list:

Air - terrorists need to breathe. Have you seen someone breathing recently?
Water - terrorists need to drink. Have you seen anyone drinking?
Food - terrorists need to eat. Have you seen someone trying to buy sandwiches at Tescos?
Toilets - terrorists need to piss and have a dump. Have you seen anyone visiting the pleasantly smelling lavatorial facilities in your local pub?

Nanny-statism at it's unpleasant worst.

PDBTL #1 - seatbelts.

2010-11-25T21:31:00.000Z

First in a series of (UK) government sponsored advertising, suggesting that perhaps the ~~subjects~~ citizens shouldn't break the law, and wasting tax-payer's money in the process.

This is the "gory" version of this particular advert (the pre 9pm watershed version only omits the allegedly 'graphical' stuff that happens inside Richard's body.)

Richard didn't want to die, [Richard is driving along] but he couldn't stop himself.[1]

The collision [two cars head-on-collide[2] in a residential area[3]] with the car didn't kill him, but he wasn't wearing a seatbelt, so he continued on his journey. [Airbag deploys and Richard hits it full on.][4]

When he hit the inside of the car[5] [his head breaks the windscreen[4]], that didn't kill him either.

But his internal organs carried on travelling until they hit his ribcage[5] [graphic of Richard's ribs], and his lungs were punctured [his ribs break and enter lungs[6]], and the main artery from his heart was torn.[shift to front view, and slowly leaking blood from his 'heart' is shown[7]]

And that's what killed Richard.

[Fade]

[Think! Always wear a seatbelt]

[1] Perhaps Richard should have had his brakes checked last time they felt spongy then. Or perhaps he should have been paying attention to the road ahead of him. Or perhaps he shouldn't have been speeding.[8]

[2] Such a perfect head on collision. To pick an easily found link at random, in 2005 in the US, only 2% of collisions were head on, (though were the cause of 10% of fatal crashes.) Most other 'head on collisions' don't involve the car going straight ahead as shown and stopping in such a short distance - which is what causes the injuries stated. If there isn't an air-bag[4]

[3] Typical speed limit in a residential area in the UK? (Section 24) 30mph. Are we expected to believe that there is a substantial number of fatal, perfect, head on collisions at 30mph in built up areas where at least one of the drivers dies?

[4] Hang on... Air bag? Those are supposed to protect you are they not? :

WTF is his head doing hitting the windscreen with such force (at 30mph[3]) that it breaks? That is one seriously mis-designed air-bag. Maybe it's the car company that killed him?

[5] The only part of Richard shown hitting the car at any speed is his head. The rest of his torso should have been less affected due to the air-bag[4]

[6] Not necessarily fatal.

[7] Given the speed of the blood coming out of that heart, the pathologist in me suspects that Richard was long dead before the crash, and *that's* what caused the crash.

[8] I have no doubt that one of those adverts will make an appearance here.

Anyway - as pointed out in a previous post, the fact the advert exists is a load of bollocks. While being in a moving car without wearing a seat-belt (with certain exceptions) is against the law, punishable by a fine, the government's own statistics show that the adverts do fuck all:

This publication presents estimates of seatbelt wearing rates [...] by drivers in England. Estimates of seatbelt wearing rates for Scotland are also included. Surveys were carried out in October and November 2009.

The main results from the seatbelt survey for England are:

* The proportion of car drivers observed wearing seat belts has not changed since the 2008 survey, remaining at 95 per cent in 2009.

We know you opted out but...

2010-11-25T19:52:00.002Z

... we really really want to send you some crap.

SO MUCH TO SAY.[1]

DON'T MISS OUT ON ALL THE LATEST MARKET INFORMATION AND INSIGHTS.[2]

Dear XXXXXXXX

We like to keep our customers up—to—date with all that’s going on, whenever we can. However, because you’ve chosen not to receive marketing communications[3] we’re not able to keep you informed of the latest news, offers, and insights.[4]

We’re committed to maintaining the privacy of all our customers.[5] That’s why if you do decide to opt back in, we’ll keep your information safe and secure. We won't share any of your details with third parties for marketing purposes.[6]

THE BENEFITS OF KEEPING UP-TO-DATE.

From fund launches and investor information to latest offers such as the cash back offers. It could benefit you and your investments to stay in touch with all the things we’d love to tell you about.[7]

We’ll only ask you this once every three years.[8] lf you do change your mind later on, you can opt out simply by calling or writing to us.

DON'T MISS OUT ON WHAT WE'VE GOT TO SAY.

Opting back in to our communications is quick and easy. Just fill in the reply form below and send it back to us free of charge in the enclosed reply—paid envelope.

We look forward to hearing from you soon.[9]

Yours sincerely,

[1] Too bloody much it appears.

[2] I somehow think that L&G are hardly on the cutting edge (well any more than, say, LLTSB who took over Clerical Medical recently.)

[3] There was a reason for that. I get enough crap through my letter box. And I thought a check box indicating "don't send me stuff not directly relevant to any accounts I hold with you" meant, well, not sending me stuff that's not directly relevant to any accounts I hold with L&G.

[4] Or advertising asking me to opt back in. Oh... wait... that's not right is it?

[5] No you're not. It's a legal requirement of the Data Protection Act. Not maintaining my privacy might cost you money, and certainly loss of good will.

[6] Of course, that's no guarantee that you won't offer the opportunity to send me crap on behalf of 3rd parties yourselves, is it? And make money from those 3rd parties doing it.

[7] Or I could just read the financial press, (and there's quite a bit of it online.)

[8] Once every three years too often in my opinion. And I'm sure there's absolutely no way of opting out of these three yearly reminders, without ceasing to be your customer. Or even if I ceased to be your customer.

[9] Don't hold your breath.

PDBTL and SWMFM!

2010-11-25T01:39:00.000Z

I intend to start a series or two.

Please Don't Break The Law (PDBTL) and Stop Wasting My Fucking Money (SWMFM) - government ~~spending~~ wasting money on advertising suggesting (or telling) you to or not to do something.

This post started off as the first one in the series for PDBTL, but the background to the opening paragraphs started getting a bit verbose, so thought it needed a post in its own right.

Naturally this post is UK-centric, but I've seen other nations' governments' attempting to cajole their subjects/citizens.

Since the 'majority'[1] of the UK population that could be bothered to turn out and vote[2] at the last (May 2010) election removed the Labour party, who seemed to be such spendthrifts[3] - especially when it came to spending the tax-payer's money on advertising (£253M 2009/10[4],) I thought at least the coalition would have at least reduced it.

Down to nothing.

Especially since ~~we're~~ ~~they're~~ we're[5] supposed to be saving money in these straightened economic times.

No such luck. Though I have noticed a reduction in the number of government sponsored adverts, they are still there.

The previous Labour government spending on advertising spanned a few areas:

Health (^178% 2009 ->2010[4])

get your flu jabs
stop fucking around
if you must fuck around get yourself tested for chlamydia

Education (^50% 2009 -> 2010[4])

lern 2 spel
Learn to count
Learn the other stuff you should have learnt in school but didn't because they didn't teach you nothing.

HMRC

Tax needn't be taxing
Pay your fucking tax
Pension bollocks (NEST, GMP, S2P, SERPS)[6]

Get a job yer lazy twats

Among others.

But the ones that really annoy me are the ones that suggest/tell you not to do things that are against the law.

The government thinks they need to tell us what's against the law ~~through the medium of dance~~ using adverts. Using our tax.

For example in a few clicks of a mouse you can have access to the Highway Code. Or, alternatively, for the Luddites among you, you could pop down to your local WH Smiths and purchase a dead tree version for under £2.00.

In it, it has words of wisdom such as things that are actually against the law, and if you (don't) do them, you leave yourself liable to a fine, points on your licence, or even accommodation at Her Majesty's Pleasure. (The online version lists the relevant laws - not sure about the book.)

Things such as

Not wearing a seatbelt (Section 99)
Not using a hand-held mobile phone while in control of a vehicle (Section 149)
Speeding (Section 124)

All three of the above have copious adverts telling you not to do them.

Why? It tends to change nothing, and some of the statistics show it. The DFT (presumably by wasting more money) collated some results in their report entitled: Seatbelt and mobile phone use surveys: 2009 results. Some 'interesting' results:

The proportion of car drivers observed wearing seat belts has not changed since the 2008 survey, remaining at 95 per cent in 2009.

The proportion of car front seat passengers observed wearing seat belts or child restraints has decreased slightly from 96 per cent in 2008 to 95 per cent in 2009.

The proportion of car rear seat passengers observed wearing seat belts or child restraints has risen to 89 per cent in 2009 from 88 per cent in 2008.

Since the last survey in September 2008 the proportion of drivers observed using hand-held mobile phones whilst driving increased (from 1.1 per cent to 1.4 per cent for car drivers and from 2.2 per cent to 2.6 per cent for van and lorry drivers).

An increase in the number of drivers who appear to be using hands free mobile phones (from 0.5 per cent to 1.4 per cent for car drivers and from 1.1 per cent to 2.4 per cent for van and lorry drivers) was observed in the same period.

Now that first section has changes of at most 1%. Taking front seat passengers with seatbelts, if 2008 was 95.5% and 2009 was 95.4%, and we round to 2s.f. we now have our 1% difference, generated from a 0.1% difference. Well within the bounds of error. (Granted other valid values could be 96.4% and 94.5% (1.9%) but I'm sure that this would have been pointed out had it been the case.)

Likewise, the differences for phone use differ by at most 0.4% - suspected statistical error again.

Hardly encouraging, or justification for spending on adverts, given that we've had these adverts on UK media for years.

The cynic in me is waiting for the first advert telling you not to steal.

Or don't go around murdering people.

[1] Since (roughly) two thirds of eligible voters[2] actually bothered to turn up and vote, and of those only 60%[2] voted for either of the parties eventually involved with the coalition, I hardly think 40% of the electorate constitutes a majority.

[2] http://www.ukpolitical.info/2010.htm

[3] Spendthrifts, contrary to what some/most seem to believe (me too, until I saw that first link when it was first published,) derives from "spending the money that [previous] thrifts saved," and thus indicates someone who spends a lot, rather than someone who is thrifty by not spending.

[4] In Labour's last year of government, they managed to increase their spending on advertising from around £180,000,000 to £253,000,000. (The article says 40% up to £253M)

[5] It's my tax you're spending damn-it!

[6] Win 2 internets if you actually know what all those stand for without hovering over the links, visiting the linked sites, or work in the pension industry.

TV Licencing. Have you paid in Sheffield?

2010-11-24T12:56:00.001Z

Via BBW:

There are five homes
in Rock Street S3
without a TV Licence

[graffitti] Maybe they have a life

That would be Rock Street, Sheffield then?

View Larger Map

Is your house there?

Anyway, this is yet another prong in TVL's[2] "You're guilty until ~~we decide otherwise~~ you've bought a licence regardless of whether you're required to," campaign that's been prevalant over the years.

There are a variety of reasons why a home might not legitimately have a TV licence.

It may be unoccupied, the previous occupier having transferred their licence to their new house.
The occupier may not be able to afford a TV Licence and has forgone the need to own a TV.
The occupier may have decided that all the stuff on TV is shite and isn't worth the TV, or the licence.
The occupier may simply have taken the stand that they disagree with the licence on principle and decided not to have a TV.
The occupier may have a TV but may only use it to view DVDs/videos/Wii/X-Box, and not to watch live TV.

Or there's one reason why they may illegally not have a TV licence and that's

That they have equipment that is both capable of, and is being used to, receive as-broadcast[1] TV signals.

That bolded bit is important - it's why the owner in #5 above is able to own a TV yet not be required to have a licence. It's also, incidentally, why it's possible for someone not to own a TV, but still be required to have a licence (TV receivers on PC's are an example of the latter.)

Anyway, the poster above implies, as do the letters they send that border on barristry, that everyone(without exception) without a TV Licence falls into the latter group.

I'm sure the BBC have better things to spend the ~~Licence Fee~~ tax-payers' money on.

[1] http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/check-if-you-need-one/

You need to be covered by a valid TV Licence if you watch or record TV as it's being broadcast. This includes the use of devices such as a computer, laptop, mobile phone or DVD/video recorder.

[2] For the benefit of those fortunate to not be harassed by TVL - "TV Licencing" is actually a trademark, owned by the BBC in the UK, which 3rd party companies can licence(!) in order to harass law abiding members of the public.

~~Crapita~~ Capita seem to be the company that provides the bully-boys at the moment.

Not so happy down on the farm...

2010-11-16T16:13:00.000Z

MotherCare are selling (but currently out of stock) the Early Learning Centre Happyland Goosefeather Farm [current] for £30. In the product description:

All the fun of the Happy Land Goosefeather Farm with Farmer Shepherd and his wife

Includes a barn, tractor and trailer, sheep pen, pig sty, and six animals

Your little ones will love playing with the farmyard animals, while learning the different sounds they make with the help of the animal sound effects

Brilliant, eh? But what's this? If you want to buy it direct from the Early Learning Center [current] it's only £25. What do you think might be the difference? Their product description:

Bring all the fun of the farm to HappyLand with this lovely set.

Farmer Shepherd wakes up early in the morning to tend the fields. Mrs. Shepherd makes sure all the animals on the farm are well fed and happy.

Set includes barn, tractor, trailer, pen, 3 fences, gate, Farmer Shepherd, Mrs. Shepherd, horse, cow, sheep, sheepdog and chicken.

Press the buttons on the roof to hear five animal sounds.

Can you spot the difference?

Bit difficult?

Ok - here's the promotional photo from Mothercare:

And the promotional photo for ELC:

Spot the difference yet?

How about a hint - here's the mother care one again:

Yes - for a reduction of £5, you can get the new version of Goosefeather Farm without pigs.

"New Version" I hear you ask?

Yup - the ELC have slaughtered all the pigs on Goosefeather Farm for fear of offending Jews and Muslims.

Really. But don't worry - the pigs are still there in spirit. Ghostly pigs can still be heard haunting Goosefeather Farm, because the button that produces the Oink sounds proved a little more difficult to remove than the pig.

Oh - what's this? ELC have done a U-turn due to bad publicity? Colour me surprised.

Smut on smut channel - shock horror!!

2010-11-10T16:36:00.001Z

Not so much the advertisers themselves this time, but the authority that purports to regulate them.

No video this time, sorry ;)

Imagine you're watching an adult themed channel at 6.40am.

An advert for a parody of the Blair Witch Project called "The Bare Tits Project" pops up. (Mistakenly, apparently - the advert shouldn't have gone out.)

Tagline: "In 2009 4 students went out to make a naughty documentary in Epping Forest ... They never returned but the footage was found a year later ...".

Now given that the advert (from the ASA description) has nothing more explicit than that which may be found on Page 3 of your favourite Red Top, and bearing in mind that this is "Tease Me 2" what would your reaction be?

1) Ignore it because you realise that kids won't typically be watching Tease Me 2, especially in households where the parents are actually parenting and have probably put the controls on such channels.

2) Ignore it because you realise that no-one except you will be watching Tease Me 2 at 7am in the morning.

3) You wouldn't be watching it anyway, since you either realise that there's very little smut on the smut channels that early in the morning, or you have better things to be doing then. Like sleeping.

4) Complain to the ASA that people might be offended at seeing smut on the smut channels at early-o'clock in the morning and it would "cause serious or widespread offence [and] that the depiction of nudity contravened [...] generally accepted moral, social or cultural standards."

Yes, some sad twat chose #4.

And the ASA agreed with them.

Furthermore, the ASA decided to stick their oar in and add to the complaint by claiming that the ('explicit') premium rate numbers advertised alongside should have been presented on an encrypted channel. (They should perhaps take a look in the adverts sections of the aforementioned Red Tops.)

And the ASA, strangely enough, agreed with themselves on that 2nd point.

So, the punishment for mistakenly airing an advert before 7am in the morning that normally wouldn't be aired after 9pm?

The usual, with a rider: The ad must not be broadcast again in its current form, unless it is shown on encrypted elements of adult entertainment channels.

Vicks - up next: the cure for cancer

2010-11-08T02:43:00.003Z

Proctor & Gamble have finally done something no other scientists have thus far been unable to do - cure the common cold. Or so they imply:

Stop Your Cold with ..
Watch the ad...

When you catch things early, they're easier to deal with.

So when you feel the first signs of a cold[1], Vicks First Defence catches the virus and helps stop the cold developing.[graphic of Vicks nasal spray attacking viruses][2]

Vicks First Defence - helps[3] stop your cold before it takes hold.

http://www.vicks.co.uk/first-defence/nasal-spray/ [current]

Attack is the best form of defence

Picture the scene. You’ve got a holiday coming up and, just when you should be getting excited, you feel the dreaded twinge of an approaching cold. Great.

Don’t panic! Vicks has the solution - First Defence Micro-Gel Nasal Spray. Applied as soon as you feel the first warning signs of a cold[1]. The unique Micro-Gel attacks the virus where it first takes hold[2] – at the back of your nose, traps it, disarms it and helps to remove it. When people used Vicks First Defence Micro-Gel Nasal Spray at the first signs of a cold[1], 77 per cent said they didn’t develop a full blown cold*[4]. So next time a nasty cold threatens to ruin a holiday, don’t surrender – send it packing!

Always read the label/leaflet.
*2006 consumer satisfaction survey of 90 UK users.[5]

[1] The first signs of a cold typically occur 2-5 days after catching the virus which causes the common cold. (But, as the link points out, it could be as soon as 10 hours.) The problem, of course, being that once you've started showing the first signs of a cold, the virus has been replicating busily in your body, so...

[2] It's impossible for a nasal spray to attack the virus as shown in the nose when the virus has already taken hold in the rest of the body.

[3] Weasel words.

[4] How many of those 77%[5] would have developed a full blown cold had they not been using Vicks? From the link above:

Sneezing and coughing are the body's natural efforts to eject the viruses. Fever reduces the virus' ability to reproduce inside the nose. It does seem to be likely that in those people who only experience symptoms for a few days, the immune system is functioning well.

[5] 77% of 90 UK users is... 69 people. Out of an adult population of 45,457,163 (Number of voters on 22 Feb 2006.) For the mathematicians at P&G, that's 0.00015%.

Clearly Vicks products do mitigate the symptoms of colds, but I find it highly unlikely that they can do anything about the causes of those symptoms.

The AA - Half price driving lessons?

2010-11-02T15:43:00.001Z

Cheap driving lessons [current] from the AA? Hardly.

AA Driving Lessons
from only
£10.50 per hour *
Call now on
0800 980 1834
Offer subject to availability

* Discounted price is for the first two hours of tuition purchased in one transaction using a valid debit or credit card when calling 0800 980 1834, after which standard lesson pricing applies. A handling fee of 1.5% plus VAT is applied to credit card transactions. Lesson prices vary by postcode and instructor and will be confirmed when you call. Debit card transactions are exempt of handling fees. Offer cannot be used in conjunction with any other offer and applies to new pupils only. Tuition must be booked through the AA Customer Service Centre on the number displayed in this advertisement. AA tuition is subject to instructor availability. AA driving instructors are self-employed franchisees and all contracts for the provision of tuition are between the pupil and the instructor. AA Driving School reserves the right to amend, change or withdraw this offer at any time.

So, for one transaction only, you can get two half price hours worth of tuition at £10.50. If you buy at least two hours. If this is your first transaction with the AA. If you can get an instructor, and if that instructor only charges £21 per hour. If you aren't paying by credit card.

Having bought some lessons, you aren't allowed to use this offer again, since you would no longer be a new pupil.

That's a lot of if's for saving £21 on something that will probably cost quite a lot more.

Now, the AA has already recently been slapped once on the wrist by that most toothless of regulators (the ASA) for a similar (previous) advert:

we considered that the claim "Learn with Us HALF PRICE AA driving lessons from only £10.50 per hour*" in the headline implied that unlimited lessons could be booked at the stated price within the promotional time frame, whereas the price stated in the offer was limited to two lessons only, and was dependent upon the purchase of a block booking of a minimum of five lessons and was also dependent on the availability of an instructor who offered standard lessons at £21. We considered that, although the conditions of the offer were stated in subsequent click-throughs, those conditions contradicted rather than qualified the headline claim and the promotion was therefore misleading.

Clearly The AA has changed their advert due to the ruling, but have they really changed it sufficiently?

RSPCA - saving the animals one by one.

2010-10-31T23:00:00.000Z

http://www.rspca.org.uk/in-action/aboutus/whatwedo/-/article/EM_what_we_do

Everything we do supports our goal of preventing cruelty – and all our successes drive us to continue making life-changing differences.

We work tirelessly to rescue domestic animals and wildlife.

[...]

Our wildlife centres rehabilitate animals who can be returned to the wild.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/wildlife/8089702/RSPCA-criticised-for-killing-orphaned-deer.html

The fawn was plucked from its pregnant mother after she was killed in a car crash.

It was reared at the RSPCA Wildlife Centre in Nantwich, Cheshire, then released into the wild.

But the male roe deer was deemed too tame for its natural environment and was euthanased.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1324137/RSPCA-killing-orphaned-deer-tame.html

BDS spokesman David Kenyon said: 'If the RSPCA took the decision to raise the deer, then they should have taken the long-term decision to put it into a petting zoo.

'It was irresponsible to bring up a deer and expect it to go back into the wild.

'I have heard of deer being raised and put in petting zoos, but I have not heard of one being raised and then put down. That's a first.'

http://www.arbroathherald.co.uk/news/dangerous_orphaned_deer_put_down_1_299769

"Staff were very hands-off during the deer's stay at the centre. They did not talk to the animal, or pet him, and they threw his food over the wall so there was no direct contact," she said.

When the deer was released into the wild on October 20, however, he was apparently unable to cope with his new environment, so RSPCA staff caught him and put him to sleep.

One of these things is not like the others.

Want to buy some crap? I have just the company for you...

2010-10-26T23:02:00.001+01:00

More tagline idiocy, via FailBlog:

While not quite as amusing as expertsexchange.com, ~~penisland.com (well as was - it is a porn site now)~~ penisland.net or even whorepresents.com, you would have thought that someone involved with the website would have picked up on it.

Based in the UK if anyone in Belfast, Co. Antrim would care to drop by and laugh at them.

Washing Ariel at 15'C. Or maybe it'd be better at 30'C after all...

2010-10-26T21:06:00.005+01:00

Suggested by Rob[11]; first an old(er) advert...

Hot pasta sauce. Hot chocolate sauce. Hmm - hot date.[1]

But, a cold wash. [Turns dial to 15°C][3]

New Ariel Excel Gel - it's unique new gel specially designed from scratch[6], to give outstanding cleaning from as low as[4] 15 degrees[2][3]. So now you really can, "wash on cold."

New Ariel Excel Gel. Outstanding cleaning from as low as 15 degrees.

[1] What sort of stains are Ariel alluding to here? Or is it just my mucky mind.

[2] Ignoring the hint given in the video; degrees what? Fahrenheit? Rankine? API? (There's a whole list here for those who want to examine this particular piece of stupidity.)

[3] Without looking, do you know what's the coldest cycle on your washing machine? Let's have a look a few random machines:

The Hotpoint 6200 series - 30°C (page 12)
The Creda 1000 Supaspeed[5] - 40°C (page 8)
The Becko WME 72xx series - 'Cold' (whatever) but the lowest they quote is 30°C (page 18)
The Boshe WFC2062/05 - (you'll have to take my word on this one, but the German manual is available from their website - no direct downloads) - 30°C (page 7 of the larger manual.)

If you have one of these 'older' machines, then being able to wash clothes at 15°C using this specially designed from scratch[6] detergent is really rather pointless, unless you're prepared to go and ditch your working washer for a newer model, however; before you do...

I'm sure there are newer washing machines out there that actually would do colder, if they had two inlets; one for cold and the other for hot.

But most machines these days have only one inlet (to save on manufacturing costs - it's nothing to do with energy efficiency,) typically for cold water (which the machine then heats if/as required - a marvelous energy saving if you have, for example, hot water produced by cheaper means other than the mains electricity - making the point of sometimes being able to wash at low temperatures rather meaningless,) but it's not unknown for you to be required to attach your hot water to it instead. Now, if you've got water pumping into your drum at - what - say up to 50°C, you're still not going to get your 15 °C wash.

[4] Weasel words.

[5] I'm sure there's another post in there, but I can't be bothered.

[6] Now, far be it for me to say, but bragging about Version 1.0 of something is not really something you should be doing.

However, should your washing not come out entirely perfect at 15 degrees curvature[2] the first time, a wonderful company have come up with a solution.

Can you guess who it is yet?</rolf harris>

Stain Removal the Fi..
Watch the ad...

Some things are just difficult to get rid of, the first time.[7]

It's the same with getting rid of tough dried in stains on the first wash. [Subtitle: Not for use on wool, silk, leather.][8]

Now there's a stain remover from Ariel. [Subtitle: Tested at 30°C[9] vs. detergent alone] It helps your detergent to get rid of stains which otherwise would may go away the first time.

More stains out, first time. New Ariel Stain Remover. Discover the complete range with confidence. Guaranteed results or your money back. [Subtitle: Return survey+deposit[10]. Conditions apply. For details ariel.co.uk]

[7] "Have you tried Ariel Detergent 15°C V1.0 and found it lacking?"

[8] Do not use on the leather jacket you wore on that messy hot date[1] Or on her silk stockings.

[9] Hmm. Why won't this new one work at 15°C then? I wonder. Perhaps you should have tried V1.0 at 30°C after all. Oh[3] - you did? As you were...

[10] What's all that about then? You need to leave a deposit to get your money back?

[11] As Rob pointed out:

The website:
www.coldisthenewhot.com
The blurb:
"The gel has been specifically designed to work right into your fabrics, offering outstanding stain removal and brrrrilliant results even at low temperatures. No wonder consumers are saying it's one of the most brrrilliant detergents they've ever used!"

(Not this particular consumer; it's no better than Lidl own brand detergent, just brrrrrrilliantly more expensive)

Download Chrome with... Chrome

2010-09-22T22:37:00.000+01:00

You would have thought that when creating an advertising campaign for a browser, you'd at least exclude those users actually using that browser.

(For those interested, not only is the advert by Google, the advertising platform being used here (s0.2mdn.net) itself is also by Google.)

The (UK)government on not being wasteful....

2010-09-18T19:23:00.000+01:00

From Private Eye 1271, I found this:

"There has been an estimated 52 percent reduction in spending for the first month of the government's marketing and advertising freeze." announced the Cabinet Office last month. " That is the equivilant of almost £6.5m in savings, compared to the same period last year."

Pats on the back all round. Not least at DEFRA, where filming on a new public information campaign encouraging people to recycle was completed just three weeks before the election.
Even though the entire budget had already been spent on making and editing the film and the airtime was donated for free, the coalition has decided to waste money by not using a campaign against waste, in order not to appear wasteful.